GUEST OPINION: 1st amendment doesn't protect animal abusers, 05-23-09

As the NFL ponders permitting Michael Vick back into the league, the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will decide next term whether videos that depict the killing of small animals and videos of dogfights are protected by the First Amendment. This decision is a no-brainer.

As the NFL ponders permitting Michael Vick back into the league, the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will decide next term whether videos that depict the killing of small animals and videos of dogfights are protected by the First Amendment. This decision is a no-brainer.

Engaging in dog fighting is a felony in all 50 states, and attending a dog fight is illegal in all but two. Those who profit from videos of these barbaric acts should not pretend to do so under the guise of advancing principles of free speech.

The Supreme Court will decide this issue because the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Robert Stevens, a Virginia man who sold videos of pit bulls attacking other dogs. Stevens was convicted under a federal law passed in 1999 making it illegal to sell, possess or create depictions of animal cruelty. The Court of Appeals reversed Stevens’ conviction on the grounds the video was an expression of his free speech.

Our forefathers did not intend for the First Amendment to be a shelter for promoting criminal violations.

In People v. Voelker, Voelker was convicted of animal cruelty after he decapitated three live iguanas on television. The Supreme Court rejected his argument that the broadcast of the event was protected speech, holding that to extend the reach of the First Amendment that far would allow anyone to avoid prosecution for criminal acts merely by videotaping them.

Likewise, in People v. Thomason, the appeals court upheld a defendant’s conviction for animal cruelty in making a “crush video.” Just as pedophiles take pleasure in viewing child pornography, “crush videos” appeal to sadistic individuals who derive sick pleasure from watching animals being tortured and ultimately killed in grotesque fashion. Although Stevens arguably did not actually commit the acts of cruelty, his commercial gain constitutes aiding and abetting, and he is no less guilty than one who fences stolen jewelry even if he or she did not steal it.

Opponents argue the law would prohibit the broadcast of some events, such as bullfights in Mexico, that are legal where they occur. That may be true if the broadcast and further display of those images violates laws of other countries or states where the display of those offensive images constitutes a crime. What’s wrong with other countries or states regulating criminal activity within the borders of that country or state? The First Amendment does not protect illegal conduct, such as pornography or obscenity. Since the First Amendment does not protect those disseminating child pornography or snuff videos, it certainly provides no greater protection to those disseminating images depicting animal cruelty. Moreover, the First Amendment does not protect offers to engage in illegal activity on the basis that they lack social value, much like obscenity does.

Page 2 of 2 -
First Amendment protection cannot be provided to those who commit the reprehensible act of sexually abusing children or a heinous act against a defenseless animal. While no one disputes the distinction between animal cruelty and child abuse, both victims are necessarily dependent on others for protection.

The Massachusetts animal anti-cruelty statute is entitled “Crimes against chastity, morality, decency and good order.” Massachusetts is clearly concerned about the harmful effects to society of engaging in acts of animal cruelty. So what about children who view these video depictions of dogs fighting? How will it affect them? The Rhode Island SPCA recently reported that the most critical way parents can prevent their children from developing violent tendencies is to ensure they know “that it is never acceptable to harm an innocent animal, no matter how simple the action.” It starts with prohibiting the dissemination of videos depicting barbaric acts of animal cruelty under the guise of the First Amendment.

These videos — these so called freedoms of expression — have no redeeming social value. Dissemination of these images causes harm to defenseless members of our society. Our Supreme Court cannot condone this twisted interpretation of the First Amendment. Our courts — and our forefathers’ intended meaning of the First Amendment — must speak for those who have no voice.

Diane Sullivan is a professor of law at Massachusetts School of Law, specializing in Animal Law, as well as an avid animal rights activist. Holly Vietzke is an assistant professor who teaches Animal Law. Michael L. Coyne is Massachusetts School of Law’s Associate Dean.